watchmenfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Fate of Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis
Source This article is based on an original discovery I made ca. 1995. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has ever noticed the content of panel 1:25:4 or made these inferences, which I believe withstand close examination. (None of the detailed panel-by-panel analyses such as Watching the Detectives, for example, gives the content more than passing mention.) The original publication of this discovery was to a limited audience of scholar/aficionados long ago. I believe it's past due time to place this alternative interpretation into the Watchmen critical continuum. I look forward to your comments and additions. NitroPress 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :It's great that you've developed this theory, but I'm not sure this wiki is the best place to get it across. By all means link to the external arguments, but I really don't think they should be replicated here. -- Supermorff 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) :: My first reaction was, this is silly. But after studying the panels more closely, I think you are right. :: I don't agree with one of your claims -- that "No other panel in the entire novel in which characters of no story significance are so prominently presented while the flowing story elements are minimized to make room for them." There are many such panels. These panels share the following characteristics: (1) The main characters aren't doing anything visually interesting beyond what they have been doing in previous panels, so there's no need to focus closely on the main characters, and (2) the images that the panel primarily focuses on are either characters or objects intended to tell the reader where we are, or show something about the overall social milieu. Examples where unknown humans are in the foreground include 1:19:4, 3:7:2, 4:24:4, 4:24:6. Examples where objects are in the foreground include 1:25:1, 6:14:9. In other words, these are equivalent to establishing shots in film and TV. Indeed, 4:24:6 makes the important characters vanish behind unknown full-colored humans even more strikingly than your restaurant panel. :: In 2009, the significance of the gay couple in the restaurant might not be obvious, but in 1985 (as you may or may not recall) gay couples in public places (other than established "gay-friendly" areas) were not at all common. Moreover, panel 1:25:4 does not just highlight the couple; the pipe-smoking woman with the knot-top hairdo (who is clearly not youthful, unlike most true knot-tops) is also in full color. I always intererpreted these three foreground characters as serving the purpose of telling us what society was like in NYC in an upscale restaurant. Most of the book is set in NYC, but extremely little of it takes place in upscale public areas, so it was necessary for Moore to depict that world carefully when he got the chance. :: So when I say I agree with you, it's because of the very close agreement of facial features; the uniqueness of this panel is not a convincing part of your argument, in my opinion. By the way, you might want to drop the "very likely" before "Rolf Müller" -- your theory depends on HJ being RM. :: In any event, kudos for your brilliant idea! I have read Wm many times, and have caught a lot of minor trivia details (the reference to John Carter on 3:21 for example) but this never occurred to me. But what's up with the Aleister Crowley eyepaint in 1:25:4? — Lawrence King (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Obviousness About the 'obvious' homosexuality: I was about to protest 'what, that's just affection, not homosexuality' because the looks on their faces and holding shoulders is not much. But then I saw the younger-looking man clasping both hands on the others', that makes sense, that looks more loving. Tyciol 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Tie masks Is it just me, or does the way the light dimples off the two men's bow ties make it look a bit like masks? Metropolis had a mask like that. Hooded Justice didn't, but then, maybe it represents a change in his personality... I just noticed you mentioned this already, lol. Tyciol 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) :The text/article mentions that their bowties are like domino masks. Since you noticed it, why you repeat it here? lol :) MoffRebus 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Age I disagree with the 'near 70' assertion. The man on the left looks older to me. His hair is white, he's got a mustache and has more visible wrinkles. It makes sense to me that this would be Hooded Justice. As the first hero (preceding Metropolis) he'd probably be older, and the mustache matches that of Rolf Muller. Tyciol 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Ultimate Fate Is it necessary to state something about their actual fate being unknown due to the alien? The restaurant was in New York. Some doubts I like the theory, but personally the resemblances do not seem that great. Rolf's eyebrows are quite different to the man on the left, and the man on the right is not nearly as square-jawed as Captain Metropolis. Also, the two men died or disappeared twenty years apart, surely a genuine disappearance pact would have at most two or three years between events? Thirdly, I don't have a copy of the novel handy but didn't Rolf Muller's body show up? There was doubt as to whether he was the same man as Hooded Justice, but I thought that Rolf Muller was definitely identified with the body? Kaid100 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) : Indeed, a body, "tentatively identified as Muller", turned up, shot in the head. I have quite a few issues with this article. First off, should there not be a disclaimer stating that this is just a (wild) theory? Heck, Gibbons himself states that what this article suggests isn't the case (he sympathises with the conspiracy theorists though). Secondly, there's a lot of conjecture, loaded language, bias, weasel words, etc. Because it is such a baseless theory, the original author has had to rely on pointing out the "obviousness" and "most likelihood" of his/her argument. Eztr 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) EZTR, you're welcome to disagree with the conclusions of this article all you like. However, simply stamping B------T all over it is pointless, stupid and rude. Dave Gibbons' comment, in case you didn't notice, was that it was not intentional but that it's "such a clever theory he's loath to deny it." So while it may be wrong, in the most technical sense, there is little doubt that the elements discussed are indeed there. I suggest that if the presentation of material that may contradict your beliefs is posted, you work on a careful rebuttal rather than just (carelessly editing) things. Or go complain on Wikipedia - they're much more used to such behavior there. NitroPress 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :NitroPress, Etzr has been warned about his profanity, but you should take note too. Responding to profanity with more profanity is no less profane, and you're just as liable to be banned if it continues. -- Supermorff 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC) ::Noted. My apologies for overreacting. I have edited my prior comments. NitroPress 20:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) :::That is much appreciated, thank you. -- Supermorff 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Other Likely Theory in Canon I'd like to point out that it is implied that the Comedian was the one who killed Muller; the timing is right and he had both means and motive; a guy with Blake's skills and connections (he was soon after working for the government overseas, remember?) could have easily found the opportunity. Let us not forget that Adrian Veidt looked into HJ's disappearance and "learned that a government operative, Eddie Blake, attempted to un-earth Hooded Justice shortly after his disappearance but reported failure. Veidt suspected that Blake had found and killed Hooded Justice, but reported failure to his superiors, although he admitted that he could not prove this." (quoted from the Final Fate section of Hooded Justice's article. --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 00:56, September 16, 2012 (UTC) Automated transfer of Problem Report #19863 The following message was left by Anonymous via on 2009-03-16 05:29:52 UTC "Distasteful lifestyle?" A bit homophobic, don't you think?